e - Ken Gilbert

Have your say
Letters
Share your views and opinions with fellow AP readers every week
LETTER OF
THE WEEK
Wins a 20-roll pack
of 36-exposure Fujifi lm
Superia ISO 200 35mm
fi lm or a Fujifi lm 4GB
media card*
PROBLEM SOLVER VER R
I have a problem neer cswith e h t the
screens
on the back of s digital ar e ma cameras,
and I know that i e uI qi am nun not nt
ot unique
in
this. I fi nd that er useeing t ci p e hthe the
pictures
on the screen Dy mof f my mi
yR
DSLR DL
SLR
is
diffi cult in bright sunlight, gig t ht,
even when I have a e shade. had d e.
When I had to replace ht ace e tthe
he
compact camera I always way y s
carry in my pocket, f onone one e of
the options had an evel eye-level -ye- level
viewfi nder. Not ionly ht s does edoe s this
mean that seeing gthe a e mi image image
in bright sunlight t onf i , is t l diffi ucffi ccult,
ult,
iif
f nnot
ot
impossible, but wit onis kalso a so a
kknown
nown
recipe for camera shake. ake e .
Then seI htfound h t obthe o t r eanswer nsw w er
tto
o bboth
oth
tthese
hese
na mproblems. y mf o e noWhile h guorrooting ht g ing through
one
of
my
many
di l st ekcodrawers p a s sor cof a e collected ma cI , k njunk, junk,
I came
across
a pocket
slide
ews at suj n eer cviewer. s a n o k I rrealised ow d l uothat ws i hthis this
would
work
on
a screen
just
aas
s wwell
ell
as a slide. I removed t d ptthe fhe d et ffrosted
sros p d tne
ad tk plastic ps
clas abt ic back
and atn
d eplaced pc
laced
the tvhe
o view vw
Siew y mover or
ver my
SLR
screen. It gave me a perfect view of the screen. I then placed it over the Live View
display on my compact camera and held it to my eye. Apart from the fact that it is
a bit ‘dotty’, I have a viewfi nder equal to or better than an SLR. Holding it in place
is fi ddly, but a couple of small pads of Velcro will do the trick and yet allow instant
removal before pocketing the camera.
Peter Miller, Suffolk
You can’t beat a dark cloth over the head, Peter – after all, it worked for the
Victorians. It will make people think your compact is mahogany and brass,
too – Damien Demolder, Editor
Write to…
‘Letters’ at the usual
AP address (see page
3) fax to 020 3148
8130 or email to
amateur
photographer
@ipcmedia.com
@
*Please * indicate
whether w you would
like l to receive
Fujifi F lm fi lm or a
memory m card
(please ( state type
preferred) p and
ninclude
in your full
postal p address
Backchat B
Send S your thoughts
or o views (about 500
words) w to ‘Backchat’
at a the usual AP
address a (see page 3).
A fee of £50 will be
paid p on publication
14 www.amateurphotographer.co.uk I 17 April 2010 subscribe 0845 676 7778
www.storemags.com & www.fantamag.com
*IN A CHOICE OF COMPACTFLASH, D S, H SALTFL ASH,
MS SD ED MOR OR MMEMORY
I ET
MS
Y ORY SSTICK
TKI
CK
PHOTO FAKERY
The current hot topic of ‘fake’ photos –
wildlife awards being won by infrared triggers
(last year’s snow leopard) and captive
wolves – leads me to the question of
conceptual photography. My personal
aim of photography is either to bring
humour to the audience or let them
experience the captured moment, such as a
sunrise or mist across an ocean – or simply
to receive from the viewer a vocal ‘Wow!’
or ‘Ahh’. Surely an image holds value purely
in its aesthetic attributes; from a layman’s
perspective, a good photograph is a good
photograph. People are not interested if I
have spent the past week in a hide in the
freezing cold using an infrared trigger to
get that one moment where a rare animal
crosses my path; nor are they interested in
the depth of fi eld, aperture and so forth. To
them, if it looks good, it looks good.
As long as I acknowledge how I came to
take the photo when asked, admitting
that it was actually taken in a zoo and that
the sun was not actually there and was
just pasted in afterwards, then apart
from the purists, who cares? Are we all
losing sight of our real goal to bring to
others a pleasing photograph?
Jason Chalk, Dorset
NOT SO SIMPLE
Malcolm Gee is correct (Letters, AP 3
April) in that the law lets us photograph in
public places. However, the legal system is
never as simple as that; any one situation is
covered by several laws that give confusing
and even contradictory interpretations.
So you photograph a child in public: the
mother is upset. Immediately we are talking
conduct likely to cause a breach of the
peace, invasion of privacy, outrage to public
decency if paedophilia is assumed and,
of course, obstruction of the pavement
with your tripod.
It’s easy to say, ‘Take proper precautions
and there should be no problems’, but
unfortunately those precautions don’t have
much to do with logic or even law. In cities
terrorism is the main worry, but in suburbs
and villages the big (and hysterical) shout
is paedophilia. One idiot sees your camera,
suspects the worst, gossips infl ate those
fears and, that’s it, you’re doomed. Terrorism
has the big advantage over paedophilia in
that it’s fairly easy to prove you’re not
a terrorist, whereas paedophilia is an
accusation that lingers long after police
investigations reveal nothing suspicious.
Remember that paediatrician who was
driven from her home because stupid and
illiterate gossips couldn’t understand the
English language? That could happen to you
if you insist on claiming your legal right to
photograph children in public.
So use common sense and never shoot
children unless the circumstances are
rock-solid safe. For example, every year
there’s a Beautiful Baby competition at
Bluewater shopping centre in Kent. Armies
of babies crawl in front of the camera, and
100 of the best shots are published in a
large-circulation newspaper chain with not a